Clever (took me a moment to figure out what the comma operator does here...).
And makes sense: You would not want an invoker to have that kind of power.
If it wasn’t so negative for performance, I probably would apply curryThis() to
all of my methods:
var obj = {
method: function
On 10 November 2011 14:49, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
getX() is designed for a dynamic `this` (i.e. `this` is an instance of
InnerPoint). My proposal would allow an external party to switch to lexical
`this` (=== function Outer), simply by invoking it as a (non-method)
function.
Any suggestion for improvement is highly welcome. But it seems like we can’t do
better than a construct that declares statically, how its `this` should be
passed to it. The cool thing about block lambdas is that you do the right thing
without thinking about it. That’s why, if we got arrow
I wonder if it made a difference if `this`was always stored in an
environment (instead of an execution context). Then block lambdas could find
them via the scope chain.
If I understand you correctly, then yes, this is definitely possible
in principle, and in fact corresponds to the standard
On 10 November 2011 15:58, Axel Rauschmayer a...@rauschma.de wrote:
I wonder if it made a difference if `this`was always stored in an
environment (instead of an execution context). Then block lambdas could find
them via the scope chain.
If I understand you correctly, then yes, this is
Note that the traitsjs library provides:
1) all the safety of the objects-as-closure pattern you show below (and
more because it takes care of the needed freezing).
2) still allows intuitive use of this to refer to the instance itself,
bound not lexically, but rather at object instantiation time.
I wholeheartedly agree that mixin composition is superior to both
prototype and class-based inheritance. I'm not sure I entirely follow
your point regarding `this', though. (TBH, I'd prefer not having a
`this' keyword at all, because not being alpha-convertible, it doesn't
really compose with
The only value prototype inheritance gives is the fact you can change the
prototype and changes are reflected.
If you do not want that feature then use mixins.
On Thu, Nov 10, 2011 at 4:56 PM, Andreas Rossberg rossb...@google.comwrote:
I wholeheartedly agree that mixin composition is superior
On Nov 10, 2011, at 7:59 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
My previous proposal for class-like sugar for traits composition was not
popular. Whereas, in the absence of problem #5, I suspect the traitsjs
library would be. As previously observed on this list, traitsjs is more
JavaScripty. Ideal
On Nov 10, 2011, at 2:07 PM, Brendan Eich wrote:
On Nov 10, 2011, at 7:59 AM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
My previous proposal for class-like sugar for traits composition was not
popular. Whereas, in the absence of problem #5, I suspect the traitsjs
library would be. As previously observed on
Or are there other plans to get it solved? I would still love to see that
happen, it’s a remarkably subtle source of errors. Could functions adopt the
block-lambda semantics of picking up the `this` of the surrounding scope
when not invoked as methods? It seems like that could work in
On Nov 9, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
Or are there other plans to get it solved? I would still love to see that
happen, it’s a remarkably subtle source of errors. Could functions adopt
the block-lambda semantics of picking up the `this` of the surrounding
scope when not
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Nov 9, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
We talked about lexical this for functions long ago (Jan. 2008? at Google
anyway) and IIRC Mark found a subtler flaw.
I think my original example was smaller and more
Got it. I’m assuming that’s a performance issue?
You could say that. If we inherit by default but it's a soft binding, then
the inner function has to carry that reference with it, but in a way that
can be overridden.
We talked about lexical this for functions long ago (Jan. 2008? at
On Nov 9, 2011, at 4:15 PM, Mark S. Miller wrote:
On Wed, Nov 9, 2011 at 4:00 PM, Brendan Eich bren...@mozilla.com wrote:
On Nov 9, 2011, at 3:48 PM, Axel Rauschmayer wrote:
We talked about lexical this for functions long ago (Jan. 2008? at Google
anyway) and IIRC Mark found a subtler
15 matches
Mail list logo
